Battlefield 3

[Shardik]

Yout post was good but your sig is much better!

[Stuey]

Who? Me?

[hitmanNo2]

Does anyone know if they've fixed the static ammo belts on the SAWs?

[Stuey]

I hope so, even BF2 had the rounds moving...what would be really neat would be if you could see the belt run out, instead of there still being rounds visible even when your ammo counter says 0.

 

Edit: just watched the SAW bits of the video again, can't tell...another thing I noticed is that there is only ever one level of zoom on screen at any time - I would have thought with this new engine they would have made it possible for just the scope to be zoomed in, but apparently not (the only game I know of that does this is Red Orchestra).

[TheFull9]

Had the strangest feeling yesterday that I really wanted to play some BF2 again, probably after all the E3 stuff.

 

 

Quite the coincidence.

[jbb02]

Hopefully this will be a true sequel to BF2 rather than being a bit of a lightweight BC3-a-like, if they can pull that off and make this the true BF game it deserves to be then I'll be a very happy man.

 

 

How can you compare BF2 with BC2 (stand alone unmodded)? I didn't see a major difference in terms of game modes ( I am referring to multiplayer ). The single player was a OK but I think the BF series shines in multiplayer. I think BC2 blew Bf2 and any other FPS out of the water even if they did take out jets/commander mode; destructible environment that was actually useful? BC2 is ahead of its time!! The graphics and especially sound effects are the best I've ever seen in a game (can't say realistic because I don't know what its like to be shot at by a tank). But I have been into FPSs' since before Counter strike and can say BC2 blew my mind. After playing BC2 I can't look at any other FPS the same way again unless I can blow out walls etc... The frostbite engine they have is amazing, and Bf3 is going to use frostbite 2 engine. I think in terms of game play mechanics it should be just like BC2, but if anything they should allow modding.

[TheFull9]

How can you compare BF2 with BC2 (stand alone unmodded)?

Erm.. quite easily, a bit like so:

 

-While both of them are very good games, Battlefield 2 was comprised of fairly believable conflicts involving factions that used realistically modeled weapons, vehicles and equipment. Bad Company 2 makes use of a far less realistic set of weaponry and gear for the soldiers.

 

-Battlefield 2 contains essentially one game mode, the old Domination game that we've all known for many years. Bad Company 2 contains both Domination and throws Rush in to the mix.

 

-BF2 allows players to choose from 7 different character classes, each with 1 base weapon and 2 unlockable weapons, with up to 6 people in a squad inlcuding a designated squad leader. BC2 allows players to choose from 4 different classes with far more unlockable weapons for each class along with various accessories and character stat upgrades, however squads may contain at the most 4 players and they do not feature squad leaders.

 

I'd say those were some comparisons.

[aznriptide859]

Has anyone else heard if BF3 will bring back the Commander role for MP games?

[TheFull9]

It won't. 4 classes, 4-man squads, no commander, though I believe there will be squad leaders.

[jbb02]

How can you compare BF2 with BC2 (stand alone unmodded)?

Obviously there are differences, that was more of a rhetorical question than anything.

-While both of them are very good games, Battlefield 2 was comprised of fairly believable conflicts involving factions that used realistically modeled weapons, vehicles and equipment.

Even though I was discussing multiplayer gameplay mechanics, and not campaign story-lines, I don't see how a conflict with Russians vs. Americans is any less plausible than a conflict with Chinese / Middle Eastern faction vs. Americans. Sure some of the maps have underlying references to the campaign, but it really didn't affect my multi-player experience. I am not saying the campaign in BC2 is true-to-life, I wouldn't be a good judge of that, but that wasn't what was being discussed. As for the weapons, I don't know what you are on but they all look a hell of alot more realistic in this video game than in BF2 (not saying they are without flaws though I guess), I don't recall seeing humvees having doors blown off in BF2.

 

-Battlefield 2 contains essentially one game mode, the old Domination game that we've all known for many years. Bad Company 2 contains both Domination and throws Rush in to the mix.

 

It also throws in the squad modes too. Apart from the squad modes, I don't think they would constitute "major differences in the game modes" since they are essentially the same thing, just a different approach.

 

-BF2 allows players to choose from 7 different character classes, each with 1 base weapon and 2 unlockable weapons,

 

Wrong. I was referring to the unmodded games (you can see it clearly when you quoted me). You only get one unlockable primary weapon per class in BF2, the others require expansion packs, but the roles are essentially the same, heavy classes (assault, anti-tank, support) and light classes (medic, spec ops, sniper, engineer).

 

...BC2 allows players to choose from 4 different classes with far more unlockable weapons for each class along with various accessories and character stat upgrades...Bad Company 2 makes use of a far less realistic set of weaponry and gear for the soldiers...

 

 

I think this is because of the fact that BC2 is a "video game". EA just seemed to mash the classes together based on their core skills, while giving us more than enough options for weapons in each class. The same roles are kept but streamlined and are customizable to the point where you can make almost any class from BF2 (albeit with slightly different weapons). As for the choices of weapons, it seems EA went for aesthetics in BC2, but since you were referencing expansions, the loadouts in BC2: Vietnam didn't seem so "far-fetched" to me. ( I wasn't in the Vietnam war so I can't say for certain)

 

with up to 6 people in a squad inlcuding a designated squad leader. , however squads may contain at the most 4 players and they do not feature squad leaders.

 

I will admit, the 4 player cap is annoying when I am playing with friends, but to be honest the majority of games I played in either bf2 or bc2 no body joined squads and when they did they weren't very helpful. If communication was a problem we'd get up a vent/party chat (on XBL). I am aware that there are groups of people who swear by squads (hard core clans) but I think they are in the minority. Getting rid of the squad-leader was a good idea, instead of just one person designating attack/ defense targets, the whole squad can in BC2. And without commander there really isn't a need for squad-leaders.

 

better luck next time

[spetsnazdave87]

 

better luck next time

 

Calm down dear

[TheFull9]

better luck next time

What the heck are you prattling on about man? I wasn't even arguing with you, I seriously have no idea what you're even disagreeing with.

 

If you're under the impression that I was making any sort of argument as to which is the better game out of BF2 and BC2 then I can assure you you're sorely mistaken. But well done for wasting a load of time writing all of that in an attempt to dissect my points that were nothing more than highlighting differences between the two titles, very good effort there.

[jbb02]

I'd say those were some comparisons.

 

 

I was just elaborating on your comment. Sarcasm isn't easy to pick up on the Internets, I didn't mean any offense.

[aznriptide859]

http://kotaku.com/5811215/embattlefield-3-reaches-out-to-4chan-withdinosaurs

 

LOLLLLL.

[adadqgg]

One very logical comparison: Modifications(what keeps a game alive after so many years).

 

PR > all. Even though I would prefer the ARMA2 version since the engine allows for more cool stuff(FASTROPES!!!).

 

PR is not going to BF3 for obvious reasons(EA is trying to keep the modders out with excuses such as "game engine is too complicated to make a mod tool for" while Bohemia Interactive supported the modding community so the game is still very alive despite the less-realistic weaponry/details in the vanilla game).

 

This is why people will still play BF2 with PR mod even after BF3 come out(possibly until ARMA2 PR gets to a more mature level featuring all of BF2PR's current assets or when the PR standalone game comes out), and in a year or two...BC2 will probably stay in a box somewhere in GameStop(or in a gamer's closet, if it is the better PC version), collecting dust.

-------------------------------------

Regarding that tank-"battle" video: the systems = fail.

 

1. No FCS...(ARMA2 walks all over BF3's face on this one)

2. Russian tanks will one-hit-kill those American ones at the very least(since even the old tanks are being updated with the new guns; depending on the model, they may also take a lot more than two shots to the side, and never miss at that range)...for obvious reasons.

3. Russian tanks were going the wrong way...

[TheFull9]

-------------------------------------

Regarding that tank-"battle" video: the systems = fail.

 

1. No FCS...(ARMA2 walks all over BF3's face on this one)

2. Russian tanks will one-hit-kill those American ones at the very least(since even the old tanks are being updated with the new guns; depending on the model, they may also take a lot more than two shots to the side, and never miss at that range)...for obvious reasons.

3. Russian tanks were going the wrong way...

It's Battlefield, why are you expecting lots of realism from a game where extensive bullet/blade/burn wounds are instantly cured by the application of defibrillators?

 

You really need to realise, the vast majority of people just want a fun game, 99% of them don't give 2 monkeys about this sort of stuff. Banging on about it is about as good a use of your time as searching for striped paint and left-handed screwdrivers would be.

[Seraphim989]

2. Russian tanks will one-hit-kill those American ones at the very least(since even the old tanks are being updated with the new guns; depending on the model, they may also take a lot more than two shots to the side, and never miss at that range)...for obvious reasons.

Say whaaaaaaaaaat? Take Abrams down with single hits, and survive multiple shots from those Abrams? That's ridiculous. The Russians are improving a lot of their stuff, I'll say the PAK-FA is better than the F-22, once it's going properly, but American armour is still way ahead of Russian, especially considering the bulk of Russian armour forces are still composed of T-72s and T-80s. Even the most advanced T-90 is really just an updated mixture of the two, and nothing like the Challenger/Leopard II/Abrams, etc. There are very few tanks that can penetrate the Abrams anyways, and even fewer that can avoid being penetrated by it.(Sorry if anyone got hot and bothered by that kinda talk)

If you want to talk about realism, tak about how all the tanks stop before they fire. Sure, they do it for the game so the player can aim more easily, but that would be a giant no-no in a real situation.

[Stuey]

If you want to talk about realism, tak about how all the tanks stop before they fire. Sure, they do it for the game so the player can aim more easily, but that would be a giant no-no in a real situation.

 

The player controls the tank, you could fire on the move if you wanted to.

 

I like how they included zoomable optics, a range finder and thermal vision. All the HUD stuff adds up to a pseudo-realistic tank level.

[hitmanNo2]

Can you have two players in a tank? One driver, one shooter?

[adadqgg]

Say whaaaaaaaaaat? Take Abrams down with single hits, and survive multiple shots from those Abrams? That's ridiculous. The Russians are improving a lot of their stuff, I'll say the PAK-FA is better than the F-22, once it's going properly, but American armour is still way ahead of Russian, especially considering the bulk of Russian armour forces are still composed of T-72s and T-80s. Even the most advanced T-90 is really just an updated mixture of the two, and nothing like the Challenger/Leopard II/Abrams, etc. There are very few tanks that can penetrate the Abrams anyways, and even fewer that can avoid being penetrated by it.(Sorry if anyone got hot and bothered by that kinda talk)

If you want to talk about realism, tak about how all the tanks stop before they fire. Sure, they do it for the game so the player can aim more easily, but that would be a giant no-no in a real situation.

Russian 800mm penetration at 2km(newest round; China worked with them for our 850mm at 2km round so Russia probably has even better stuff) vs. U.S. 800-900 mm steel equivalent(turret; less in chasis; upgrade package only put ERA and some other armour on the side and rear of the chasis, I believe). In the video that distance cannot be 2km.

All russsian tanks gets about the same guns to keep the less-advanced yet mass-produced/too-good-to-throw-away tanks useful.

 

U.S. 765mm penetration(estimated; let's just say 800) at 2km vs. ???

K5 made Russian tanks completely immune to M829 when the Germans tested it; A3 was supposed to help against it but BF3 is set in the near future(trial Relikt armour would probably be used, which is twice as effective as K-5). America went to the direction of spending most of its money on air/sea(economic recession + huge CV maintainence fee at the very least) anyway; falling behind on tank technology is normal since modern warfare is moving away from MBT.

 

Just for that video (just Tank vs. Tank), I believe Russians would win easily/somewhat easily (I cannot identify the model of those tanks since I am watching the laggy/blurry video from China's internet).

Considering the company's location...it is normal that U.S.-bias would kick in and cause Russians to lose.

 

-------------------

I think Aimbot is needed for realism on tanks, lol.

 

Even if they do not have FCS; I hope this game gives the tank 2/3 seats (one gunner, one driver + maybe a machinegunner). Then they can give the tank more power. One-manning a tank gives a individual too much power and causes people to rush towards the tank every time... And hopefully the vehicles are locked to the other team.

[bladerunner168]

Does anybody here host their own or clan servers? or is there an official Arnies team/server

I've wanted to do one for ages, maybe we could do an "Arnies" only server

 

If the costs are relatively cheap, I'm up for starting one.

[Stuey]

Can you have two players in a tank? One driver, one shooter?

 

Nah, that's not the Battlefield style sadly. It would be good if you had the option, but I severely doubt it. It'll most likely be the same as BF2 and BC2: one player controls all the main functions of the tank (IE driver and gunner) and a second player mans the top-mounted machine gun - whether the MG operator will be exposed and able to be shot (BF2), or protected and using a remotely-operated MG (BC2), remains to be seen.

 

Russian 800mm penetration at 2km(newest round; China worked with them for our 850mm at 2km round so Russia probably has even better stuff) vs. U.S. 800-900 mm steel equivalent(turret; less in chasis; upgrade package only put ERA and some other armour on the side and rear of the chasis, I believe). In the video that distance cannot be 2km.

All russsian tanks gets about the same guns to keep the less-advanced yet mass-produced/too-good-to-throw-away tanks useful.

 

U.S. 765mm penetration(estimated; let's just say 800) at 2km vs. ???

K5 made Russian tanks completely immune to M829 when the Germans tested it; A3 was supposed to help against it but BF3 is set in the near future(trial Relikt armour would probably be used, which is twice as effective as K-5). America went to the direction of spending most of its money on air/sea(economic recession + huge CV maintainence fee at the very least) anyway; falling behind on tank technology is normal since modern warfare is moving away from MBT.

 

Just for that video (just Tank vs. Tank), I believe Russians would win easily/somewhat easily (I cannot identify the model of those tanks since I am watching the laggy/blurry video from China's internet).

Considering the company's location...it is normal that U.S.-bias would kick in and cause Russians to lose.

 

-------------------

I think Aimbot is needed for realism on tanks, lol.

 

Even if they do not have FCS; I hope this game gives the tank 2/3 seats (one gunner, one driver + maybe a machinegunner). Then they can give the tank more power. One-manning a tank gives a individual too much power and causes people to rush towards the tank every time... And hopefully the vehicles are locked to the other team.

 

You really expect the developers of a Battlefield game to put in all the realistic penetration and armour values on tanks? As CKinnerley keeps saying, that's not what BF is about. It's a fast-paced, fun singleplayer campaign. And of course the distance is only a few hundred metres maximum - again, it's BF. In multiplayer, the tanks are going to be symmetrical in their capabilites, the only difference will be that one looks like an Abrams and one looks like a T-90.

[Shardik]

I think I just walked into an ARMA thread....

 

 

[Jagdraben]

Someone seems to be forgetting that we've gone up against enemies with better tanks before and won. All it's going to take is a couple of Devil's Crosses to really f___ up the Russians' day.

 

I should also add that it won't be the first time the M1 Abrams had a worse maingun than its Russian counterparts. Then as now, though, the Abrams is still a better tank in every other way.

 

ETA: Russia is chronically broke and China spends but a fraction of what the US does on defense, so I wouldn't expect any Fifth Gen fighters from them to be airborne in meaningful numbers any time in the near future. The US is the only country that has developed and deployed a Fifth Gen fighter and even we can only afford a handful.

 

Tank guns are cheap. Aircraft aren't.

[TheFull9]

Can't wait til our F-35s show up.. that's a posting I'm gonna put in for.

 

Anyway, when it comes to the multi-player (which is what you buy a battlefield game for) it's all going to be balanced out regardless. BF2 differentiated the factions to an extent with the basic level small arms, but when it came to BC2 you're looking at teams that are at least 95% symmetrical. All the infantry weapons/equipment are the same for each side, the transport helos are different and that's mostly it, certainly performance wise no side any any advantages over the other.

 

Actually I'm hoping (and expecting tbh) that they bring back the rock-paper-scissors that BF2 had with the M16A2, AK-101 and the AK-47. Shame the only CQB map with the USMC vs. PLA wasn't released until after the big peak in popularity, but I did enjoy playing on different sides and having to think about the areas in which my weapons were suited, better accuracy with the m16, middle ground with the 101, high damage with the 47. I think I've said it before in here, but I really want an SF DLC with silly things like zip-lines again, you could do all sorts of awesome stuff with those grapple hooks if you practiced your climbing skills. Looking forward to the day we finally get to see the whole ranks, unlocks and customisation system; having played some BF2 the last couple of days, I had forgotten a bit of what it's like being stuck in the non-RIS era using fixed carry handles.