I told ya'll Battlefield 3 was an updated version of medal of honor.......

[QUOTE="ChubbyGuy40"]

[QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]

So what has changed in COD since COD2 in the "grand scheme of things"?

ActionRemix

Fixed, since the only thing CoD4 did was add one of the worst elements in video games ever, killstreaks.

and you fail to explained how its terrible. By far the best CoD MP next to CoD:UO.

[QUOTE="ActionRemix"]Console footage looks really good aside from a few awful foliage textures. Play it on a console if you want to.ChubbyGuy40

You forgot the awful looking character models shown during the kill-cam. Flat textures and it seemed like some foilage shadows were missing. Oh, and low res textures but DICE makes really good looking patterns so it's all good.

[QUOTE="viper-kid"]Thats good it's my first PC fps so I hope I don't smashed to hard that I quit back to consoles.lol On Topic: They probably will release conquest 32 players down the line but I doubt 64.ChubbyGuy40

Remember you can use a PS3/360 controller if you aren't comfortable with a KB/M. Practice is the only way to get used to it.

Beta doesn't last that long from what I know, so chances of that happening are slim to none.

I might go with a AMD Phenom II x4 965 instead but I don't trust AMD.viper-kid

[QUOTE="viper-kid"][QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]

Typical COD mentality. BF is a PC franchise. Why the hell would they bother showing tonnes of footage on consoles? They are appealing to their true fans with PC footage and showing the game at its best

seanmcloughlin

Its not elitism, its logic. If BF3 is built on PC primarily and then ported to consoles then why would they show more console footage if it looks inferior? It makes the game look bad and DICE in turn look bad. We are entitled to get more because we don't just pay for the game, we upgrade our hardware to make top of the line games actually LOOK top of the line. Your arguement makes no sense. We invest more in our systems so therefore we should deserve more. We don't just pay once for a box and demand better and better stuff without making the effort to change things ourselves.

The ultra settings are missing in the beta. What's listed as ultra is just high placed again which is why people are claiming that DICE wasn't serious when they said 2 580s are required do to ultra. That and the beta takes place on a relatively smaller map with no vehicles and in rush mode. Battlefield is about massive maps, primarily vehicle based combat and conquest mode.

[QUOTE="xYamatox"]

[QUOTE="ActionRemix"] Go play 1942, then play BF2, then play BC2. Even BC1 and BC2 are worlds apart. COD4 is the last COD game that really evolved the series.seanmcloughlin

I own BF2, my brother-in-law owns 1942 and played it, and I've played every version of Bad Company 2. The differences are minimal in the grand scheme of things. From what people are saying, BF3 is like BC2 with a little MoH mixed in, so I don't see what you're getting at.

So what has changed in COD since COD4 in the "grand scheme of things"?

Not much to be honest, if you really feel like using CoD as a scapegoat. You're getting very defensive about this subject, which is exactly my point. People who play CoD can accept and understand that it has issue. I rarely play CoD, and know this (more of a Killzone/Left 4 Dead fan). However, people constantly over praise Battlefield for what it is, and will basically defend any negative points about the series (as already stated by the apparently overly defensive posters replying to my previous comment). Destructible environments really aren't that big of a feature, especially when all the maps are filled with the same generic buildings that all break almost exactly the same (and some could say makes Sniping far too easy, since you can basically destroy all cover available to the players). Although it may be a stretch, more vehicles can easily be equivalent to new player controlled Killstreaks.

I'm not for or against either, I am just stating what I see. There really aren't many differences between the Battlefield games outside of cosmetic face lifts and a few key features that most FPS games implement into their games with sequels (and yes, that includes CoD).

[QUOTE="viper-kid"]I might go with a AMD Phenom II x4 965 instead but I don't trust AMD.millerlight89

[QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]

[QUOTE="viper-kid"] Typical PC elitism. Console gamers pay the same amount as you so why are you entitled to getting more? Where you like it or not BF is multiplat now so get used to it.viper-kid

Its not elitism, its logic. If BF3 is built on PC primarily and then ported to consoles then why would they show more console footage if it looks inferior? It makes the game look bad and DICE in turn look bad. We are entitled to get more because we don't just pay for the game, we upgrade our hardware to make top of the line games actually LOOK top of the line. Your arguement makes no sense. We invest more in our systems so therefore we should deserve more. We don't just pay once for a box and demand better and better stuff without making the effort to change things ourselves.

If we didn't upgrade and pump money into the companies who develop hardware it wouldn't get pushed forward. And in turn the precious consoles wouldn't get upgraded either. We buy parts and then companies get more money to develop new iterations and improvements. These comapnies also develop chipsets for consoles GPU's. High end gaming started on PC and went to consoles after that. PC was also in HD before consoles. PC is basically pioneering a LOT of the future end of graphics.

And DICE care about making a great looking game for their gamers. Activision only care about the money in their pockets hence their reluctance to upgrade their engine cos it "costs too much and takes too much time" basically.

Its a cycle. They get provided with high end GPU's to make games on, we buy the games and upgrade hardware to make them look great, the GPU companies get our money to make new hardware which in turn can be passed to Dev's again to make newer better games.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8poRA0pt84 Glitchtastic confirmed. XDActionRemix

AHHHH Kill it!! kill it! :P

the music was priceless haha

I thinking about that and Radeon HD 6950 for BF3 how would that do?viper-kid

I'm not for or against either, I am just stating what I see. There really aren't many differences between the Battlefield games outside of cosmetic face lifts and a few key features that most FPS games implement into their games with sequels (and yes, that includes CoD).

xYamatox

Why do you always leave out the incredible award winning sound design? Thats a huge factor in the BF games and BF3 sounds like the best Videogame around

Its bad company 2 with updated graphics from what I have tried/seen. Nothing impressive

I just find it funny that people whine about mw3 being similar and this game plays exactly like bad company 2...

Edit: also for those saying it is a beta umm... tell me when does this game come out? Assuming they wait till the end to fix things that would mean there would be 3 weeks of time till release date... they could not possibly make changes to the retail copy in that time so....what you see is what you are getting

[QUOTE="xYamatox"]

I'm not for or against either, I am just stating what I see. There really aren't many differences between the Battlefield games outside of cosmetic face lifts and a few key features that most FPS games implement into their games with sequels (and yes, that includes CoD).

seanmcloughlin

Why do you always leave out the incredible award winning sound design? Thats a huge factor in the BF games and BF3 sounds like the best Videogame around

Because when I play a game, I don't really give too much care on graphics and sound. They help the game feel more immersive, but PLAYING the game is what's more important.

Its bad company 2 with updated graphics from what I have tried/seen. Nothing impressive

I just find it funny that people whine about mw3 being similar and this game plays exactly like bad company 2...

Edit: also for those saying it is a beta umm... tell me when does this game come out? Assuming they wait till the end to fix things that would mean there would be 3 weeks of time till release date... they could not possibly make changes to the retail copy in that time so....what you see is what you are getting

fueled-system

[QUOTE="millerlight89"][QUOTE="viper-kid"] This is all you get on GS 'You can't judge until the game comes out'. I m pretty sure the BETA is meant to provide feedback not to be rushed by fanboys about 'Wait until it's out'. Why do Devs release trailers, demos and betas? To represent their game so opinions for those are noted for the full game.viper-kid

Honestly, it is almost impossible to fully judge how this game will be until we get a 64 player map and conquest. Rush is a solid mode, but this is Battlefield, not BC.

TreyoftheDead

I agree you really can't judge it off a Beta but it will still be amazing.

Wait until the 25th before you make that claim...

mitu123

[QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]

[QUOTE="viper-kid"] With the BF fans you can't judge the game until release. But MW3 you are allowed to bash without playing whereas BF3 when you play it you still must stay silent. With that logic you can't praise BF3 since you haven't played the full game...

viper-kid

Its not like that though. We are basing judgements on what we've seen. While BF3 really went all out and looks great MW3 looks the same and looks like it plays the same too. So people are allowed to judge like that without having played it. We are judging based on what is presented before us.

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

Wait until the 25th before you make that claim...

Santesyu

Man there are so many double standards in this thread. MW3 can be judged by gameplay trailers and bf3 can't from betas? Then, viper-kid makes a solid point, and all the bf3 fans jump out and accuse him of fanboyism, when it isn't relevant bacuase he DID make a solid point.

On-point, BF3 does look a lot like MoH gameplay wise, no matter of graphical prowess is going to change that.

Man there are so many double standards in this thread. MW3 can be judged by gameplay trailers and bf3 can't from betas? Then, viper-kid makes a solid point, and all the bf3 fans jump out and accuse him of fanboyism, when it isn't relevant bacuase he DID make a solid point.

On-point, BF3 does look a lot like MoH gameplay wise, no matter of graphical prowess is going to change that.

pl4yer_f0und

[QUOTE="The_Pacific"]

Viper-Kid said one thing about BF3 beta and look what happened ? He got jumped on by BF fanboys just because he has a different opinion.

ChubbyGuy40

You must not read his other posts or know who he is then. If you did, you'd understand why people jump on his statements so quickly.

Man there are so many double standards in this thread. MW3 can be judged by gameplay trailers and bf3 can't from betas? Then, viper-kid makes a solid point, and all the bf3 fans jump out and accuse him of fanboyism, when it isn't relevant bacuase he DID make a solid point.

On-point, BF3 does look a lot like MoH gameplay wise, no matter of graphical prowess is going to change that.

pl4yer_f0und

This game plays nothing like MoH. However this map really sucks. It's even linear by BC2 standards.

[QUOTE="youngmurk911"]

I love the game and all that, its sweet....i got access to the beta this morning. the graphics look a little bit better than medal of honor and bad company 2, its not as live as the ones they keep showing on the trailer.[which i'm pretty sure every one knew] but its still nice, i just can't help but notice the gameplay reminds me ALOT of Medal of Honor which is a great game and deserved at least an 8

cabose38

No duh they don't look as good. You're playing on PS3 and most of the trailers are from the PC version.

[QUOTE="fueled-system"]

Its bad company 2 with updated graphics from what I have tried/seen. Nothing impressive

I just find it funny that people whine about mw3 being similar and this game plays exactly like bad company 2...

Edit: also for those saying it is a beta umm... tell me when does this game come out? Assuming they wait till the end to fix things that would mean there would be 3 weeks of time till release date... they could not possibly make changes to the retail copy in that time so....what you see is what you are getting

gameofthering

yes yes MOH indeed!

This is clearly like MOH!

I've been playing the beta and I must say that the game is very good (PC here)

recoil, movements, physics, combats, they're all pretty nice.

the problem is the OPERATION METRO map, one of the WORST maps of all time on any BF game. The map its just atrocious, the subway part is as "CODDIEST" as it gets. We can't analyze nothing properly on that awful map.

Well considering the fact the folks at dice did the multiplayer for the recent moh....

Well considering the fact the folks at dice did the multiplayer for the recent moh....

WilliamRLBaker

I know. Thats what I don't get. If they never made MoH's MP BF3 would still be the same. Those were innovations that they probably wanted to bring to BF3 anyway so they put them in MoH.

yes yes MOH indeed!

This is clearly like MOH!

GD1551

Those screens are amazing. Can't wait to play Caspian border. But look at what they're saying...

You can climb to the top of that antenna thing? That's cool I didn't know that.

And the pilots of the Jets actually do the G-force breaths when doing a turn to stop passing out. Thats some fine attention to detail

I love the game and all that, its sweet....i got access to the beta this morning. the graphics look a little bit better than medal of honor and bad company 2, its not as live as the ones they keep showing on the trailer.[which i'm pretty sure every one knew] but its still nice, i just can't help but notice the gameplay reminds me ALOT of Medal of Honor which is a great game and deserved at least an 8

youngmurk911

Those are PC versions. You play on consoles.

CoD sucks, I thought everyone knew that?

Cant wait for BF3 tho ! :D

[QUOTE="cabose38"]

[QUOTE="youngmurk911"]

I love the game and all that, its sweet....i got access to the beta this morning. the graphics look a little bit better than medal of honor and bad company 2, its not as live as the ones they keep showing on the trailer.[which i'm pretty sure every one knew] but its still nice, i just can't help but notice the gameplay reminds me ALOT of Medal of Honor which is a great game and deserved at least an 8

youngmurk911

No duh they don't look as good. You're playing on PS3 and most of the trailers are from the PC version.

Of course the graphics won't look much better than B2 or MoH on a 360. The trailers are running at Ultra settings at a very high FPS and high res. 360 plays it at sub 720 at 30 fps. How in god's name could you think that it could look anything like the trailers on a 360? And its meant to be olayed with a KB/M to get the full diverse experience. This game is not for you console guys as much as it is for PC players. Die hard PC guys who have been with BF since the start (not me though) have been waiting for this for a long time. Not saying your opinion isn't valid (though very flawed) but PC guys can really comment on how great it looks, performs and plays. Because they get the most full and best looking experience

Honestly, it is almost impossible to fully judge how this game will be until we get a 64 player map and conquest. Rush is a solid mode, but this is Battlefield, not BC.

TreyoftheDead

[QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]

[QUOTE="viper-kid"] With the BF fans you can't judge the game until release. But MW3 you are allowed to bash without playing whereas BF3 when you play it you still must stay silent. With that logic you can't praise BF3 since you haven't played the full game...

The_Pacific

Its not like that though. We are basing judgements on what we've seen. While BF3 really went all out and looks great MW3 looks the same and looks like it plays the same too. So people are allowed to judge like that without having played it. We are judging based on what is presented before us.

[QUOTE="TreyoftheDead"]

Honestly, it is almost impossible to fully judge how this game will be until we get a 64 player map and conquest. Rush is a solid mode, but this is Battlefield, not BC.

Messiahbolical-

[QUOTE="TreyoftheDead"]

Honestly, it is almost impossible to fully judge how this game will be until we get a 64 player map and conquest. Rush is a solid mode, but this is Battlefield, not BC.

Messiahbolical-

No they said BC games were their dip into the console market. They said they were trying things out in the Bad Company games so they could see how they worked and implement the best parts into BF3. Bad company games were designed as multiplats so that DICE could see how they did on consoles. They were working on BF3 all the time which is a PC franchise and not on consoles. They are made by the same people sure but they are not the same types of games. They are very different. BC2 plays hugely different to BF2. Even the core game modes and gameplay mchanics are vastly different. Not to mention they excluded some things in the bad company games thatw ere in BF2 i.e Jets.I understand what you mean as I only played BF first through BC2 when it came out, but even I understand the hate PC guys were giving towards BC2 and how BF3 was multi plat and not just PC. They have valid reasons and you would do well to learn all about it and respect it

Welp PC gamers, let's hope we get to see that Caspian border map today. They have been testing it on the servers and they tell us they have a big announcement for PC gamers today concerning the matter :Dmillerlight89

Feast your eyes :D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-gbrGN94us&feature=player_embedded

Also some insane pics in this thread :

http://www.enterbf3.com/viewtopic.php?t=4450&sid=545951e956a01c58ad3cef8f4c1b5c97

Feast your eyes :seanmcloughlin